News

Supreme Court chiefs celebrate 10th anniversary with official portrait launch

By on
23

Team Supreme snaps unveiled by Hale

Lady Hale and her predecessors as President of the Supreme Court have unveiled portraits of themselves in the Middlesex Guildhall.

Photographs of Hale, Lord Neuberger and Lord Phillips will greet visitors to the UK’s top court, which is marking its ten-year anniversary, after being launched by the illustrious trio on Tuesday.

Lord Neuberger, the former president already immortalised in a Legal Cheek video, joined Hale and Phillips (2009-2012) for an official unveiling ceremony captured by Joshua Rozenberg.

The portraits were commissioned as part of the court’s 10th birthday celebrations, which has already seen Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall pop in for a cuppa.

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

The Supreme Court celebrates its 10th birthday on 1 October 2019. Before that, as every law student knows, the UK’s top court was the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.

Reflecting on the court’s first decade in a recent speech, Deputy President Lord Reed said that the move out of the House of Lords had made the court more efficient and modern, with school visits, live-streamed hearings and an Instagram account (although not quite up there with the world’s most famous legal mind, Kim K).

In a very judicial form of blowout, the court is also marking the occasion with a lecture series starting in November.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

23 Comments

Anon

Who paid for the portraits?

(0)(5)

Anonymous

Department of Justice I expect. Probably cost a few hundred quid, ie f*ck all. Go on, have a moan, have whinge.

(10)(1)

Anonymous

Money well spent!

(2)(1)

Anonymous

Im just thinking, rite, that itd be cheaper if theyd used an iPhone or something

(2)(0)

Anonymous

At least they aren’t vain.

Hale used the unveiling to do a 2 hour speech about why 50% quotas should be applied to everything, ending with a long section in why it was a disgrace the England’s women’s football team get paid less than the men.

They then toddled off and handed down Tillman v Egon Zehnder which will screw over the careers of talented employees for decades to come, especially women.

(5)(2)

Anonymous

You ok hon?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Isn’t the inane “U OK hun” or variants thereon cliché of a post an example of one of the most annoying passive aggressive things on comments threads? How dull, unimaginative and vapid does one have to be to post this?

“U ok hon?” may be a an appropriate comment if one is a brain dead drone commenting on a fatuous Facebook thread. Leave it off here.

P.S. You can post “You oh hon?” back if you want, the answer will be “Yes, I am OK, but you should look at yourself to unimaginative and vapid dullard.”

(0)(1)

Anonymous

You mad, bro?

(2)(0)

Anonymous

hon is clearly not ok

(2)(0)

Anonymous

*sniffs* I smell a salty English Lit grad.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Mind explaining why her judgement of the case is bad?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It lets employers draft oppressively wide restrictive covenants knowing they can fall back on severance. And the uncertainty of that process means risk that will deter employee mobility, which in turn has serious impact on the treatment of staff by employers.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

The facts of Tilman were a 6 month non-compete and established severance principals were applied.

I think the key point to take away was that the clause without the “interested in” point is pretty standard, especially so for investment banking. Would not say that employers can now draft oppressively wide clauses; they will just be able to remedy what would otherwise be a pretty vanilla clause.

Perhaps, she should have got legal advice before entering into the contract in the first place.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Exactly. Or alternatively, as the thing was written in plain English, was pretty standard, and she knew what she was doing, she could have just honoured the promise she gave when she signed it.

Anonymous

3.18 shows the mentality that allows the capital owners to oppress the income earners. The decision was a great victory for the rich against the many.

Anonymous

err… Tillman was the ‘joint global practice head’ of the appellant company, a large executive recruitment firm. Doesn’t match the profile of the oppressed ‘many’…

Mousse

Surely that is precisely the purpose of the SC and judges generally? Regardless of personal view they hand down judgment on what has been presented to them.

If its not a decision you like, then the arguments clearly were not as robust in the SC’s view. It is ultimately up to parliament to legislate and dictate public policy, not the courts.

(0)(0)

Hugh Jass

That’s all well and good, but what’s the NQ salary at Memery Crystal?
I understand it’s a base salary of £12.50 with a discretionary bonus of £16 Billion.

(1)(0)

Titanus Borelius 'Berg

The mighty ‘Berg has employed an intricate and very complex set of employee share schemes and Long Term Incentive Plans to remunerate its staff. The black box system was an attempt to imitate this.

The bonus arrangements are decided once a year with a tournament of combat.

(1)(0)

Anon

I will ask again as same post appears to have been taken down. Who is paying for these portraits?

(0)(3)

Anonymous

Fool. Look at the first comment on this thread and the answer thereto. And look at the relative votes. Get a life. It’s obviously paid for at public expense but it likely cost very little and it’s a good and positive thing.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Where’s my portrait? I’ll just commission my own anyway – pretty easy when you make a cool $10m

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Tilman is a disaster for young professionals, especially those from working class backgrounds who do not have family capital. It allows employers to ramp up broader restrictive covenants knowing that with expensively bought drafting they will be able to fall behind severability. Tillman may have had the money to litigate this, but many, indeed the majority do not, and this decision will trap them in abusive employment as they cannot afford the costs and risks of litigation. Managing partners everywhere will be rubbing their hands with glee.

(0)(1)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories